michael - i whole heartedly support your point about the law being used to silence scientists in their work. it is not only unethical to try to silence those that voice objections to sciencific work using the law it also flies in the face of the whole scientific methodology of khun and popper

BUT

whilst they may not invoke the law you and other journalists like you do the very best you can to silence the critics of climate change science. repeatedly certain journalists do everything in their power to push the idea that climate change science is settled. in colusion with politicians and other vested interests you and your ilk do your very best to suffocate or ridicule any who disagree with your contention that climate change is an uncontrovertible fact.

so yes, journalists and their cheer leaders at the BBC may not use the law to silence opponents - but you dont always need the law to shut down legitimate scientific argument - do you ?
- Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK, 12/11/2010 14:28

Dr. Kevin Law says:
September 2, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I am afraid I am one of those you define as ‘idiots’ who does think this is political correctness. Plus I dont think the world is a better place for being told by a government Quango (in this case the CRE) what I can and cannot think,say or read. Moreover in a free society it is positively sinister there are so many people and organisations that think they are morally superior enough to say what is and is not permissible. But like all such opression, to them, the end always justifies the means. I sincerely hope to carry on being an ‘idiot’. because i would rather be an ‘idiot’ than one of those trying to tell others how to think. Orwell got it right in 1984. He was just about 25 years out with the date.

Dr Kevin Law (Letters, July 24) asks what qualifies penal reformers for their role. These are people who have devoted themselves to the study of the subject and who campaign for improvements on the basis of their findings. "Where," Dr Law asks, "is their democratic mandate?" It lies in the right of all of us to express our opinions on matters of public concern; a right we should not allow anyone, elected or not, to erode.
Colin Boatman

An interesting comparison. But as ever, those on the liberal left that are fixated with ¿human rights¿ imply that whatever the threat to society, the rules on protecting that society should never, ever, change. The equilibrium always erring on the side of the individual. What they fail to grasp is that their fixations blind them to the fact that it is inevitable that as the threat to society grows, the rules have to change, within limits, to accommodate that threat. To not do so is an equal abuse of the human rights of those who would be killed should that threat materialize.
Kevin Law, Dundee

why the assumption that all rapes happen to women? - like domestic violence - the male victims of sex crimes are erased from the debate. this ignorance however comes more from the adrophobic feminists than it does the establishment. for 'wimmin', sex crimes are all theirs - no males need apply. as one sweet 'wimmin's rape officer' (i kid you not - that was her job title) said to me one day on campus - there is no such thing as male rape or male sexual abuse - just men who feel guilty about having gay sex. nice to know those that call most loudly for equality are incapable of expressing such equality themselves. cancel virgin

From Littledong's latest arse pile of poop comments.

Yes Kevin, I'm SURE that she had the job title "wimmin's rape officer" (complete with hilarious mis-spelling). Marvellous misogyny and homophobia there, too.

And what, pray,is a "cancel virgin"?

Moron.